Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Mosques in the United States have doubled in number since the September 11 attacks, with urban and suburban centers seeing an uptick in mosque construction over the last decade, according to a new report.

Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.

“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.

Reacting to the remarks, Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defence Association said the Ministry of Education is “clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes.”

“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” a government spokesperson told LifeSiteNews.

“A government that seeks that sort of control over our personal lives should be feared and opposed,” he added.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has proved again why she doesn't belong on the U.S. Supreme Court. She really doesn't like our U.S. Constitution, which she swore to uphold and defend, and she probably would like to rewrite it with input from various foreign laws and constitutions.

On a junket to Egypt in January, where the rebels are trying to figure out how to set up a government, she gave her advice. "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," and she suggested using South Africa's constitution as a model rather than ours.

Ginsburg also urged the Egyptians to consult Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights. "Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?" The South African and Canadian courts have both approved same-sex marriage.

Our Constitution, which has endured for more than two centuries and is the longest lasting Constitution in the world, states clearly that it is "the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby." The Constitution also requires all judicial officers to "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."

A Louisiana church was ordered to stop giving away free water along Mardi Gras parade routes because they did not have the proper permits.

Volunteers were handing out free coffee and free bottles of water at two locations along a Mardi Gras parade route when they were stopped by Jefferson Parish officials. The church volunteers were cited for failing to secure an occupational license and for failure to register for a sales tax.

Ken Klukowski, a senior legal fellow at the Family Research Council, said the citation was absurd.
“This is a perfect example of why so many people have a problem with big government,” Klukowski said. “The idea that a church needs a permit to hand out water to thirsty people is unfortunate.”

He said it’s hard to believe that the government would get in the way of citizens helping each other out – “especially a church which was just doing its duty to be good Samaritans and help those in need.”
Pastor Tipton said he sent an email to city leaders explaining that they were just trying to show their love to the city “and to serve the city.”

Klukowski said the incident is outrageous.

“The idea that you need an additional level of bureaucracy stopping a church from showing kindness to members of the community is a perfect example of a waste of taxpayer money and resources,” he said.

2) “I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.”

3) “…what I have had to consider is how productive an additional term would be. Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail.”

4) “I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern”

Regarding quote number 1: Fair enough. Maine's republican voters are typical of the northeast. Very moderate, and they like their RINOs.

Regarding quote number 2: It is interesting that while the democrats put out a "my way or the highway" ideological atmosphere, Snowe was good with it and voted with the democrats. When the TEA Party has gained influence and has demanded change, suddenly she has a problem with it.

Regarding quote number 3: In other words, when the going gets tough, Snowe quits.

Regarding quote number 4: What she considers the political center is actually on the Left. The Constitution, from the standpoint of the political spectrum, is dead center. But, because of people like Snowe, everything has moved so far to the left that now the center looks like rightwing extremism to them.

The Challenger to Snowe in the GOP was a TEA Party type candidate. The question is going to be whether Maine wants to move even farther to the left, or give sanity a chance.

Constitution Quest is a board game designed to be fun, and teach you the Constitution. I advertise the game on my radio program, as well as on this site. I am not the only one that loves the game. . . check out this fun post about the game: JUST DO IT.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The Jan Brewer endorsement of Romney may have played a part in Romney's win in Arizona, but Romney won Arizona's 29 delegates with 47% over 27% for Santorum with 81% of the districts reporting.

In Michigan the race was much closer. Though Romney edged out a 41% to 38% win over Santorum with 94% of the districts reporting, if the final tally remains similar the number of delegates will be split evenly at five per candidate. Looking at the number of counties won, Santorum beat Romney. The population centers, as usual, went towards Romney.

Though the wins are a boost for Romney, there has got to be concern over the fact that Romney was unable to win easily in Michigan, the State he was born in.

We are meeting in the Spanish Ministry Room, and tonight we will be going through Article I of the United States Constitution. Class begins at 6:00 pm and ends at 8:00 pm. Calvary Chapel is located on Monroe, near California Oaks Road, in Murrieta. $5.00 per meeting.

Syrian forces have killed more than 7,500 civilians since a revolt against President Bashar al-Assad began, a U.N. official said on Tuesday, and Hillary Clinton suggested the Syrian leader may be a war criminal. - Reuters

Unions set to spend $400M to back Democrats - Washington Times (What's funny about this one is that the liberals rail against contributions by corporations. . . i.e. Citizens United. . . , whose owners made that money, and are contributing to candidates they think is best for their well-being, but unions who use dues of people that may or may not support the democrats have carte blanche)

Rick Santorum is poised to win in Michigan's Primary because of the democrats. He is targeting the Reagan Democrats in Michigan's Open Primary.

Since Obama is the guy on the Jackass Party side (uh, or is that a donkey? No, no, I'm pretty sure it's a jackass), democrats are coming out in droves to vote in the republican primary, and they are voting for Santorum in massive numbers for two reasons. One, Santorum appeals to the conservative democrats. The Reagan Democrats love Santorum because Santorum reminds them a lot of Mr. Reagan. And two, because the liberal left democrats think because of his stance on the social issues Santorum would be the easiest to beat in the general election. They are voting for Santorum in the hopes of putting up the easiest to beat candidate up against Obama. In the case of Michael Moore, he also thinks that the longer the Republican Primary is dragged out with the candidates slugging at each other relentlessly, the better it is for Obama's campaign in the long run.

Santorum's method of reaching democrat voters has primarily been through robocalls, and Romney is angry about them, calling them "Outrageous" and "disgusting."

Is this a "I can dish it out, but I can't take it" moment for Romney?

Romney's argument is that Santorum is willing to wear the other side's jersey when claiming that Romney supported the bail-out of his Wall Street buddies, but opposed an auto bail-out that was a "slap in the face to every Michigan worker."

The polls in Michigan are near even. The robocalls came the day before the vote, and may be too late to sway voters. Then again, undecideds may be swayed by Santorum's ploy. The vote will be interesting.

The funny part of this is that the Republican Establishment is shocked and scared. They never dreamed that at this point Romney would not have had it all in the bag. Santorum appeals to the conservative base, and the establishment is scared to death of the conservatives. Santorum shouldn't be where he is, much less in Michigan. The question for that, then, is why is he?

Despite the rhetoric, conservatism wins, if it is articulated properly, and is able to respond well to the attacks. Santorum is doing just that.

The Establishment thinks Santorum could not possibly win in the general election, but how capable is Romney in beating Obama if he can't even beat a conservative like Santorum? Using their line of thinking, Santorum should have no chance, yet he is right up there with Romney. Using their understanding of the way things are, Santorum should not be where he is today, and Santorum can't beat Obama, so how good of a candidate, then, is Romney if he is struggling against the "unelectable" Santorum?

The fact is, Santorum has a better chance against Obama than does Romney. This nation is primarily conservative. The signs are all over the place. The conservatives are not ruining the Republican Party, they are mending it, and bringing it back. Santorum's win in Michigan would be yet another step in that direction.

With Jan Brewer's endorsement in Arizona, however, Romney is looking at quite possibly a huge win in Arizona. Then again, the only poll I fully believe is the final vote. You never know what will happen. Even Arizona could very well be up in the air.

Remember, voters, Romney is quite liberal when you compare him to the other candidates. Aside from the fact that Obamacare was modeled after Mitt's Romneycare, recently, the beloved candidate of the establishment indicated he supports the progressivity of the tax code, and a progressive tax rate is in line with one of the Ten Planks of Communism by Karl Marx. So you tell me who the better candidate is.

The alleged shooter who killed two and wounding three others has been identified as T.J. Lane, according to a fellow student who witnessed the incident and ABC News' Cleveland affiliate WEWS.
The attack left "friends laying all over the place" in puddles of blood, one student told ABC News.

Progressivism was on the rise in the United States around the turn of the 20th Century. Americans were concerned about the large national debt that remained with the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War, and the growing social inequality between the rich and the poor. The idea that there should be a tax that “soaks the rich” began to take root among progressives of both major parties. The Democrats took to progressivism more than the Republican Party, and the liberals of the Democrat Party were looking for a way to embarrass the conservative arm of the GOP so that they could gain some traction in the next election.

With social unrest rising among the population, a democrat proposed The Bailey Bill with the express intention of enabling the Republicans to reject it. The theory was that after the Republicans rejected the bill, the democrats could then point a finger at the Republicans and claim for political purposes that the Republicans were in cahoots with the corrupt wealthy corporate types, and their rejection of the Bailey Bill, which would have imposed an income tax on the rich, was proof of such an alignment between the Republicans and the wealthy.

The conservative Republicans knew what the progressives of the Democrat Party were up to, and launched a counter move. They proposed a constitutional amendment that would impose an income tax on the rich, and when the States refused to ratify the amendment, the Republicans would use that failure to ratify the amendment as proof that the people, through their State legislatures, were against the idea of a new income tax. In turn, that would defeat the Bailey Bill, for how could Congress approve an income tax against the rich through the Bailey Bill after the people and States rejected a constitutional amendment that would have done the very same thing?

The proponents of the 16th Amendment promised that if it were to be ratified (and remember, it was fully expected not to be ratified) the income tax would only be imposed on the top 5% wage earners, it would be voluntary, and it would be temporary.

The progressives of the Republican Party, however, rallied behind the proposed amendment, and the Secretary of State announced the amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913.

Progressives, happy to see the 16th Amendment ratified, hoped to use it to tax the rich. In fact, in the beginning, only 5% of the people were required to submit tax returns. Many of the rich, however, avoided the tax with charitable deductions, and other creative strategies.

During World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the income tax as a way to vastly increase revenue, and initiated a policy of withholding from “all” wages and salaries, not just the highest incomes enjoyed by the rich. Rather than the rich paying the tax at the end of the year, the tax was collected at the payroll window before it was even due to be paid by the taxpayer. This style of collection shifted the tax from its original design as a tax on the wealthy to a tax on the masses, mostly on the middle class.

So let this be a lesson to you. When the politicians say they only want to tax the rich, first of all it never works as they plan, and second of all the tax is always eventually extended to everyone.

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." --George Washington, letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, 1790

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The influence of Israel on the operational structure of our federal government is astounding. The Founding Fathers studied the record of the ancient Israelites and were stunned by the similarities of their system to the system used by the Anglo-Saxons. The principles from the first chapter of Deuteronomy had so much influence on the creation of the American federal government that the original intent of the Official Seal of the United States was to have a Star of David on it.

The similarities between the two governmental systems used by the Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons was that both set up a commonwealth of freemen, proclaiming liberty throughout the land; the people were organized into small, manageable units where the representative of each family had a voice and a vote; an emphasis on strong, local self-government; the code of justice was based primarily on reparation to the victim rather than fines and punishment to the commonwealth; leaders were elected and new laws were approved by the common consent of the people; and accused persons were presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Jewish colonists first arrived in America in 1654, thirty years before the Germans, and fifty years before the Scots-Irish. From the beginning Jews never suffered in America as they did in Europe. A majority of Israelites in the New World supported the American Revolution, and joined the effort. Many were war heroes that gave all they had for the new nation, including their lives.

The first Jews in America fled from Brazil as Portugal took over the colony, and they came to New Amsterdam (New York) where the governor at the time contacted Holland about the influx of Jews into the Dutch colony. The orders from Holland was to let them stay, and when the Dutch gave the Jews religious freedom at that time, it planted some of the seeds for religious freedom in this nation.

When the British defeated the Dutch in 1667, and took control of the colony, they renamed it New York, and guaranteed the Jews full rights to worship, trade, and to own property. The Jewish community was about three thousand people by the time the Revolutionary War was upon this nation, and they had fully blended into America without receiving any institutionalized prejudice against them.

The American Revolution, supported by almost the entire Jewish community, saw Jewish merchants rally to the war, using their ships as blockade runners to bring supplies from Europe to supply the American army. Most Jewish merchants lost everything by the end of the war.

When the American currency collapsed in 1781, a Jewish broker named Haym Salomon kept America financially solvent. His skill, knowledge, honesty, and generosity by using his own credit to back the finances of the United States kept the nation running, and when Robert Morris, Secretary of the Treasury, finally established a bank, Salomon was the first, and largest, depositor.

During the war Salomon personally made large loans with no interest to many leading Americans of the Revolution. Robert Morris made 75 entries in his diary about turning to Salomon for help. The Jewish broker was perhaps the person most responsible for establishing the credit of the United States in Europe. He was backing the loans, and the Continental Congress appointed him "The Official Broker of the Office of Finance of the United States."

He died penniless in 1785, and the exact amount the United States owed Salomon was never determined since the records were destroyed when the White House was burned in The War of 1812.

Haym Salomon was a true American Patriot that gave his all for America.

When George Washington was elected President in 1789 he was greeted with congratulatory letters from the Jewish centers around the nation. His response connected the God of Israel, who delivered the Jews from Egypt, to the same God who established the United States. He asked God to bless the Hebrews with the "dews of heaven," and he requested the material and spiritual blessings for the people whose God is Jehovah - setting the tone of the attitude of Americans toward the Jewish People for all generations to follow.

In January and February of this year, the Internal Revenue Service began sending out letters to various local Tea Parties across the country. Mailed from the same Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office, these letters have reached Tea Parties in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas (we are hearing of more daily). There are several common threads to these letters: all are requesting more information from these independent Tea Parties in regard to their nonprofit 501(c)(4) applications (for this type of nonprofit, donations are not deductible). While some of the requests are reasonable, much of them are strikingly onerous and, dare I say, Orwellian in nature.

Barack Obama, and his wily group of liberal loons, promised transparency, and that he would enhance "whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers." The administration is doing the exact opposite. There has never been an administration in history that has tried to silence and prosecute federal workers more.

Something to hide?

The Espionage Act goes back to 1917, and was originally intended to punish those who gave aid to our enemies. Prior to the Obama administration, The Espionage Act was used three times. Since Barack Obama has taken office, the act has been used six times.

The only case where the use of the act may have been warranted is in regards to Private First Class Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who allegedly stole thousands of secret documents. The remaining prosecutions have been primarily regarding administrative secrecy, and has had very little to do with national security.

Something to hide?

Rather than being used as originally intended, the Espionage Act is being used by this administration as a way to protect official White House secrets, which, by the way, is a law that was never enacted in this country.

So much for transparency.

Something to hide?

The people's right to know the business of the politicians supersedes Washington's right to hide their business, unless it directly affects national security and a release of the information could endanger the nation.

According to the New York Times, the most recent case, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who became a Democrat staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about other C.I.A. officers, some of whom were involved in the agency’s interrogation program, including waterboarding.

Understand, the leftists hate the technique of waterboarding, and though the Bush Administration released the records regarding the people it was used on, which equaled three prisoners, and from one valuable information was ascertained, the leftist media demanded more satisfaction. Some liberals were even calling for the heads of members of the Bush administration, demanding that they be prosecuted for war crimes.

The Obama Campaign in 2008 railed against "torture," and promised to put those practices to rest. Then, after becoming President, the Obama administration has not only continued to use the technique, but now they are prosecuting Mr. Kiriakou. He is accused of talking to journalists and news organizations, including The New York Times, on the topic.

ABC News Jake Tapper, after hearing in the White House briefing room, the administration’s press secretary, Jay Carney, open on a somber note, citing the deaths of Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, two reporters who had died “in order to bring truth” while reporting in Syria, he felt he had to raise the issue. Hearing Mr. Carney echo the praise for reporters who dug deep to bring out the truth elsewhere got his attention, because through the Espionage Act this administration has been doing all it can to quell the truth here in America.

“I have been following all of these case, and it’s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites,” Mr. Tapper said. “These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.”

Mr. Carney failed to respond to any attempt by Tapper, or other reporters, to seek comment.

Something to hide?

Last year Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act. He faced a possible 35 years in prison for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, and then suggesting an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would.

He was charged with 10 felony counts that accused him of lying to investigators and obstructing justice. Last summer, the case against him fell apart, an he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor, of misuse of a government computer.

So much for transparency.

Something to hide?

Mr. Drake's lawyer said of this, “The Obama administration has been quite hypocritical about its promises of openness, transparency and accountability. All presidents hate leaks, but pursuing whistle-blowers as spies is heavy-handed and beyond the scope of the law.”

These are "leak prosecutions" that shows the Obama administration is shrouded in secrecy. The question one must ask is, "Why?"

The first thought is that they have something to hide. Could it be that they know what they are doing behind the curtain would not be met with approval by the voters? Does this administration truly believe that they are not just elected representatives of the people, but a ruling elite tasked to put upon the public an agenda best for the community as they perceive it, whether the populace likes it, or not?

If this begins to get out a little more, what will it do to Obama's chances for re-election?

Obama once called himself a professional politician, and I, for once, have to agree with him. He was right. He is a conniving, lying, deceitful, professional politician who has placed himself up on some pedestal above everyone else. He believes he is above the law, and Mr. Obama will use the law no matter how it was intended to silence those around him that might chirp a clue about the wretched reality in Washington.

This administration's greatest ally has been the media. Yet, with his use of the Espionage Act in order to hide the truth, Obama is creating a chilly environment between journalists and people who work at the various government agencies that may very well result in him losing the media's full support during the campaign.

As the public tries to seek out the truth, he is treating those who are trying to get at the truth as spies.

Something to hide?

The writer of the New York Times piece I used as a source for this blog post also pointed out something else very interesting, saying "It’s worth pointing out that the administration’s emphasis on secrecy comes and goes depending on the news. Reporters were immediately and endlessly briefed on the “secret” operation that successfully found and killed Osama bin Laden. And the drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan comes to light in a very organized and systematic way every time there is a successful mission. There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently."

Recognition of the truth is selective. . . goes back to what I have said here before: What's the answer to the question? Whatever benefits Obama the most, even if it contradicts previous answers.

It was originally reported that five students were injured in a shooting this morning at Chardon High School in the State of Ohio. Since that initial report, one of the injured students has died.

The shooter is believed to be a student, and according to the Geauga County Sheriff's Office and the FBI, a suspect has been arrested. The belief is that this was the act of a lone gunman. The shooter was apprehended as he fled the school, taken into custody on one of the nearby roads.

Of the victims, they were four boys and one girl. The identity of the fatality has not been released, yet. Two of the injured were sent to the local hospital by ambulance, and the other three were flown to a nearby trauma center in Cleveland.

According to some reports, the shooting occurred in the cafeteria. As parents tried to get to the school to pick up their children, the elementary school across the street was in the process of evacuation. Police blocked the streets approaching the school as they searched for the gunman. A teacher was a witness to the event, and chased the shooter without success of apprehending him.

There have been reports that the shooter tipped off his intentions, posting a message on Twitter that he was going to bring a gun to school. One of the students said of it, "I think he said that he was going to bring a gun to school, and I think that everyone just blew it off like he was joking."

The shooting, it is believed, occurred at about 7:45 am. The Lake County SWAT team arrived with two large vehicles at about 8:45 am.

A parent commented that the shooting, according to her son, began while students were eating breakfast in the cafeteria and waiting for the first period bell to ring. The shooter, a boy, just stood up and began shooting.

As students fled they were locked into classrooms for safety.

I wonder if this event will also become a liberal left rallying cry for tighter gun control.

Nationally local farmers are facing stiff penalties for growing and selling organic food. This drive against independent farming is linked to Agenda 21, and it is their goal to shut down all of these small farms. However, the liberal left and establishment politicians know this is not a very popular policy, so they lie and say the support local organic farms. Agenda 21 is set up to shut down Local farms and protect the monopoly of huge Monsanto "farms". In the case of a collapse, it is the independent farms that would remain in business. In a utopian/authoritarian system, as envisioned by the liberals, independent farms would not fit their collective communitarian plans.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Barack Obama says he's a Christian. To dare and doubt his honesty is grounds for attacks, accusations, and whatever else the liberal left can throw at ya. His actions, however, are anything but Christian, and actions speak louder than words.

As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted in a manner that supported partial birth abortion. As President he repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, has mocked the Bible, and called pregnancy a mistake rather than a blessing. Even his communitarianism opposes the free will offered by Biblical fundamentals.

What is scary about it all is Obama may actually believe he is Christian, or some semblance thereof. Then again, he may very well be the chameleon we all believe him to be.

The first clue of his anti-faith leanings is the very fact that he is a raging liberal leftist. The liberal democrats oppose Scripture on the social issues, and with his recent attack of demanding that religious institutions offer free contraceptives and abortion-in-a-pill, Obama has shown his disdain for The Church is even more pointed than the majority of his leftist brethren.

The liberal media's attacks against Rick Santorum is another clue, and Barack Obama is right there with them, pointing fingers at him for being too moral. Santorum's popularity with conservatives is because he is willing to speak up on the social issues. Obama's campaign against religion, or at least religion that is not Muslim, has helped Santorum along, united people of faith against the President.

The nation is mostly pro-family, pro-life, and pro-faith. Even in liberal California Proposition 8, a pro-marriage amendment to the State Constitution, won big. That's why Obama called himself a Christian during his presidential campaign. He knew he couldn't completely alienate people of faith.

Unfortunately, the Republican Establishment believes the liberal rhetoric that speaking about the social issues, and taking a pro-faith position, will scare away voters. Santorum knows better. Santorum knows it is the fact that faith emanates from his core, and that his faith is genuine, that attracts voters, and frightens the liberal left.

Economics is the angle the establishment wants to attack from, since that is Obama's weakness at this point. Republicans, historically, have been most successful when economics and national security concerns are the primarily addressed issues. The democrats hold unpopular positions on those issues. That is why Obama campaigned as a tax cutter, and he's trying to convince everyone he is again, now. He is also using the capture of Osama, and anything else around the world he can muster up. The democrats also think that it is the social issues that makes the GOP lose, which is why they launched their "Republicans wanna take away your birth control" campaign when they did.

The interesting thing about that theory, however, is that prior to the emergence of the social issues, GOP wins were far between. Since 1968, when the social issues became a part of the ballgame, the Republican Party has won seven out of the last eleven elections.

The key for conservatives has been that most of the nation is conservative, and the ones that are not completely on board with the GOP's base on the social issues, are conservative enough regarding economics and national security, that they vote republican. By embracing the social issues, Santorum is bringing back into the mix the largest group of conservatives. This is why moderate republicans like Bob Dole, or John McCain, can't win. The most conservative of the base stays home on election day.

Santorum's advantage, however, is not just that he is a social conservative, but that Obama and his liberal democrat cronies have been revealing their anti-faith agenda. Chaplains are being threatened with being charged with sedition if they dare preach their Biblical beliefs in opposition to Obama's positions on homosexuality, or abortion. The Catholic Church is being told by Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, that despite their religious beliefs, their facilities like schools, charities, and hospitals have to offer, for free, contraceptives to their employees. Children have been disallowed from praying on the steps of the Supreme Court. A Navy Chaplain was forced to resign because he dared to end a Christian prayer in "Jesus' Name" while in uniform. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently decided it could tell religious denominations who they are allowed to hire and fire as ministers and teachers. With their environmentalism, the leftists come across as worshiping creation over the creator.

Santorum has indicated that he is not questioning Obama's "Christian Faith," but has said that the President's worldview is contrary to what he claims to be, and his adherence to the theology of liberalism is dangerous for this nation.

The fact is, the liberal left's offensive against religious and family institutions is nothing new. From Progressivism to Marxism, The Left has been anti-religious from the start. Government that is all things to all people can't have competition. Allegiance to God keeps people from giving their undying allegiance to big government. Liberalism sees faith as a weakness, as a drag on their authoritarian agenda.

Obama is very much a product of the radical center of the Democrat Party.

Today's democrats, however, don't think they have to hide their ideological core, so they are now operating out in the open, putting anti-faith policies into action, because they believe they have finally reached a majority, and with one more big move, they will stay in power in perpetuity.

Of course, this is nothing new. I have spoken of Rousseau's idea of The General Will on this site before. Alexander Hamilton bought into the madness of the General Will, which calls for a utopian system of collectivism, and the destruction of individuality. The Church was the enemy, according to Rousseau. Free societies were dangerous to the well being of the community, claimed Rousseau.

Obama, and his leftist friends, keep on pushing their anti-religious agenda, and people like Santorum keep benefiting from it. Collectivism loses, in the end, because despite the liberal push for communitarianism, we are all proud individuals with very unique belief systems, and it is no government's right to try to force us into some mindless, homogeneous mass.

Only the fool says that we must all be ruled over by some authoritarian system that has determined God is a myth. Only a fool says only those that are anti-faith should be able to hold political office. Only the fool denies the importance of faith. Only the fool.

Heads up: Drones are going mainstream.
Civilian cousins of the unmanned military aircraft that have tracked and killed terrorists in the Middle East and Asia are in demand by police departments, border patrols, power companies, news organizations and others wanting a bird's-eye view that's too impractical or dangerous for conventional planes or helicopters to get.
Along with the enthusiasm, there are qualms.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I remember when locally the citizens were up in arms when the city council decided to make the red light camera's video function run 24 hours. They saw it as the city finding a way to keep a constant surveillance on the people. During a city council meeting over the issue, regarding a petition filed to ban the red light cameras, a citizen stood at the podium and told the city council to not protect us from ourselves. This kind of nanny-state attitude is a violation of our freedoms, the man offered.

The members of the city council looked at him with a deer-in-the-headlights look. When it came time for the council members to speak, one of them said, "it is our job to protect you."

The attitude of these government elitists reminds me of the movie, "Minority Report." The film is based on a short story by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick. The premise of the film is in the near future, where the nation's capital, in order to combat their incredible murder rate, has put into place a technology that identifies killers before they commit their murders. The Precrime Unit is hailed as a program that saves lives, until the chief officer of the unit is accused of a future murder through an elaborate set-up, making him a victim of the "perfect" system he helped create.

When is the line crossed? When does the government's attempt to protect us become a compromise of our liberty?

This all reminds me of the concept of The General Will.

The idea is for the individuals of a group to consider themselves a single body, conforming to the dictates of the community that best serves the whole. Individuality is set aside as selfish, and the good of the collective is place higher than the decisions of the individuals because, as it is theorized, individual decisions that place the person above the society is doomed to be unfair and not in the best interest of the community as a whole. For this to work, the members of the body must all act in unison, becoming a homogeneous mass that thinks and works alike with the common goal of the good of the community as their focus. The General Will is not recognized by the parts, but the ruling elite not only sees the General Will, but also knows how to apply it. Any individuals that refuses to participate is poison to the community, and must be removed, or be taught to work for the common good.

Not a world I want to live in, but a world those that support continued surveillance would like to see. How else could they keep an eye on you, and make sure you do as you're told?

Civilian drones is not law enforcement, but a technique of restriction. But how is the operations policed against misuse? Or as the saying goes, "Who watches the watchmen?"

They tell us we are not ushering in a surveillance state, that they will only use the drones when necessary, and never on average citizens.

They also told us, long ago when the seat belt legislation first came into existence, that we would only be ticketed for seat belt violations if we had already been pulled over for something else. Now, after time has passed, the law has become, "Click it or ticket."

Government always promises restraint, but once the reins are placed in their hands, authoritarianism is always the result.

(Reuters) - Seven U.S. military trainers were wounded on Sunday when protesters in Kunduz in northern Afghanistan threw a grenade at their base, provincial police chief Samihullah Qatra told reporters.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) confirmed there had been an explosion outside one of its bases in northern Afghanistan, but declined to comment on casualties.

According to reports, one in every two Americans are poor. Under Obama's historic leadership people are losing sight of the American dream. The fact is, a majority of these people are not poor when they are compared to the standard of poverty presented by the rest of the world. The decision that these folks are poor is based on the fact that they receive some kind of assistance from the federal government, be it food stamps, welfare, or other entitlements.

The democrats will tell you that our National Debt is increasing because there is not enough revenue, and to make up that gap the rich needs to be soaked with higher taxes. 49.5% of folks, as a result, pays no income tax. I don't believe we have a revenue problem, it is a spending problem, but going with the liberal left's argument that it is a revenue problem, then how do they explain that they support only half of Americans paying income tax? If, using their argument that everyone should pay their fair share, why does the democrats find it okay that half of Americans don't when it comes to taxes?

The Founding Fathers believed that government is not a charitable organization, and that there should be no "direct" taxes. Prior to 1900 the federal government's spending was between three and four percent of GDP. Currently, if we were to eliminate all unconstitutional federal spending the current federal spending would be about 5% of GDP. The problem is not revenue, it is spending, but the liberal left democrats tell you it is a revenue problem for the purpose of creating class warfare between the rich and the not-so-rich, and to buy votes.

During the era of this nation's founding, only property owners were allowed to vote. This was a decision of the States, since it is the States that constitutionally have the power to prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections. The idea was that only folks with skin in the game should be able to vote. As property owners, these people were the ones with the most banking on who was elected. If a voter does not have skin in the game, but is only concerned with what hand-out they get from government, their vote can be bought with the promise of more gifts from the federal treasury. These voters won't care about any other issue. They won't vote based on where the politician stands on the issue. All they care about is that their promised money continues. . . and what this does is open up the opportunity for buying votes, and for abuse of the system.

Also, the poor in America, on a global standard, are hardly poor. A friend of mine who was raised in the Ukraine during the Soviet Union years, came to America in 1978. Arkady was invited for dinner with a "poor" family in Houston, Texas when he first came to the United States. The woman in the house was telling him how difficult it was for them, living in poverty. Arkady remarked that they were not in poverty. They had a car in the driveway, televisions, ample food, a roof over their heads, pocket change on the counter. Poverty, he continued, was in his childhood when they had one pair of shoes for the whole family.

As a new American, Arkady's first job was pumping gas at a service station. In the Soviet Union Arkady was an engineer with a degree from a Russian University, and an engineer so important that he had worked on confidential projects for the Soviet Government. Yet, despite his status and education in the Ukraine, he made more money in America as a gas station attendant.

The number of people dependent on the government has been increasing rapidly under President Obama, and that is the goal. They want to buy the votes of these Americans. The democrat accuse the republicans of wanting to take away the entitlements, which is a method of buying votes. But how long can a system last when half of the people depend on the system, and that is paid for the other half, of which the number is dwindling because of the confiscatory taxes used to fund the entitlements?

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, and the way to fix it, or at least one of the avenues that can be used, is entitlement reform. Rather than telling Americans, "You are unable to take care of yourselves so we'll pay you to stay poor," I would rather the government say, "You are able to take care of yourselves, and to help you with your opportunity to pursue happiness, we will decrease taxes, and reduce the obstacles standing in your way by cutting regulations against the businesses that would love to hire you."

Saturday, February 25, 2012

The commander of NATO and U.S. forces says that all NATO personnel are being recalled from Afghan ministries following an attack at the Interior Ministry in Kabul.

Gen. John Allen says staff are being recalled "for obvious force protection reasons." He says NATO is investigating Saturday's shooting and will pursue all leads to find the person responsible for the attack.

Two U.S. military advisers were killed Saturday at the Afghanistan Interior Ministry in Kabul, though accounts of what led to the clash were unclear.

Hundreds of protesters took to the streets Saturday across Afghanistan, the fifth day of demonstrations over the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base, officials said. Four civilians were killed and 50 injured amid protests near the United Nations office in Kunduz, said Saad Mokhtar, head of the city's health department. Twelve police officers were among the wounded. Gulam Mohamad Farhad, the intelligence head of Kunduz, said the protesters tried to burn down the U.N. building.

The U.N.'s Afghan mission said all its staff in Kunduz and throughout the country are "unhurt." It denounced the attack on its compound, regretted the casualties and thanked Afghan police for their timely response to the violent protests.

Insult to WWII heroes: Graves of British troops smashed and desecrated by Libyan Islamists in protest over U.S. soldiers' Koran burning

A furious mob has desecrated dozens of Commonwealth War Graves in a Libyan cemetery amid continuing fury in the Middle East over the burning of the Koran by U.S. soldiers.

Headstones commemorating British and Allied servicemen, killed during World War II campaigns in the Western Desert, lay smashed and strewn across Benghazi Military Cemetery.

Protesters rampaged through site on Friday, despite efforts by America to calm tensions sparked when it emerged U.S. soldiers had burned Muslim holy books in a pile of rubbish at a military base in Afghanistan.

The Taliban urged Afghans Thursday to target foreign military bases and kill Westerners in retaliation for burnings of copies of the Quran at NATO's main base in the country as a third day of violent protests began.

Thousands of demonstrators gathered across the country, some chanting "Death to America!", Reuters witnesses and officials said. In eastern Kabul, hundreds of youths threw rocks at police, who fired shots into the air to try disperse the crowds.

"Our brave people must target the military bases of invader forces, their military convoys and their invader bases," read an emailed Taliban statement released by the insurgency's spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. "They have to kill them (Westerners), beat them and capture them to give them a lesson to never dare desecrate the holy Quran again."

A senior Pentagon official apologized Friday to Washington-area Muslims for the burning of Qurans at a military base in Afghanistan.

Peter Lavoy, acting assistant secretary of defense for Asia and Pacific security affairs, said the military is investigating what occurred and that all 140,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan are being retrained in the handling of religious materials.

Lavoy apologized multiple times during a brief speech during prayer services at the ADAMS Center in Sterling, one of the largest mosques in the country.

"I come here today to apologize on behalf of the Department of Defense for the incident that took place in Afghanistan this week," Lavoy told worshippers, saying the burnings were done "unknowingly and improperly."

US President Barack Obama sent Afghan President Hamid Karzai aletter of apology over the burning of copies of the Koran overseen by a US officer at a US military base, Karzai's office said Thursday.

Obama said the incident was unintentional and pledged a full investigation, the president's office said, as fierce anti-US protests swept the nation in which at least 14 people have died, including two American soldiers.

"I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident," Obama wrote in the letter presented to Karzai by US ambassadorRyan Crocker. "I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies."

"The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible," the letter said.

Karzai told members of parliament that a US officer was responsible for the burning that was done "out of ignorance", his office said.

The incident at the US military base at Bagram north of Kabul sparked three days of fierce anti-US protests in which at least 12 protesters were killed.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said President Obama "surrendered" Thursday when he apologized to the Afghan government for the burning of several Qurans at an American military base near Kabul.

Referring to the burning of "radical Islamic material" that included the Qurans, the former House speaker said the situation had been "blown into a huge incident by various fanatics in Afghanistan." He told a crowd gathered at a campaign rally at the Bing Crosby Theater that while the president had apologized for the burning, he had not called on the Afghan government to issue an apology for the deaths of two NATO soldiers who were killed by a man wearing an Afghan army uniform during increasingly violent protests of the desecration of the Muslim holy book.

"There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama's attention in a negative way," Gingrich said, "and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States, period."

----------------

Could you imagine what would have happened on the streets if say a Bible was burned? Nothing. Because the Religion of Peace is violent, and they are looking for any excuse to hate, burn, and practice Jihad.

President Bashar Assad's forces pounded rebel-held areas in central Syria on Friday, killing at least 22 people, activists said. More than 60 nations meeting in Tunisia asked the United Nations to start planning for a civilian peacekeeping mission that would deploy after the Syrian regime halts its crackdown.

As government troops relentlessly shelled rebel-held neighborhoods in the besieged city of Homs, thousands of people in dozens of towns staged anti-regime protests under the slogan: "We will revolt for your sake, Baba Amr," referring to the Homs neighborhood that has become the center of the Syrian revolt. Activists said at least 50 people were killed nationwide.

In Tunisia, the U.S., European and Arab nations asked the U.N. to start drafting plans for a civilian peacekeeping mission that would deploy after the Damascus regime halts the brutal crackdown.

...

Fair Use

~FAIR USE~ Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html") Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to douglasvgibbs@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can also Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.